This is the next in a series on the sentencing of Clare Webb Bronfman on September 30, 2020. It is important because Clare is now appealing her sentence and her codefendant, Keith Raniere, is about to be sentenced. Raniere is set to be sentenced on October 27th.
As I reported earlier, Raniere has made contact with me via members of Nxivm and has asked that I review evidence of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. I have agreed to do so – and will be reporting on this in detail shortly. My agreeing to look at the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct is not to be construed as my endorsing or supporting Raniere in any way.
In the meantime, we must study the one sentenced member of the Nxivm defendants, Clare Bronfman, to determine how it was that she was sentenced to 81 months in prison when the applicable sentencing guidelines suggested a 21-27 month sentence and the prosecution recommended a 60-month prison term.
The judge, in his exclusive discretion, chose to sentence her to a longer term than anyone asked for.
At the sentencing hearing, after nine female victims were heard in the morning, a recess was taken. Following the recess, the prosecution read a note from another victim, Sylvie, the Nxivm coach and DOS ‘slave’ who testified in the Raniere trial.
Sylvie’s statement was read by the prosecutor, Tanya Hajjar, as follows: “Whether Clare intended to hurt me, my family and many other people who were affected by her actions is irrelevant. The impact of the psychological, emotional, and physical abuse I and many others experienced at the hands of Nxivm has been devastating.
“My family deals with this pain on a daily basis and, yet, we are so incredibly grateful for all of the love, support and healing we have received since leaving Nxivm behind. We will never be able to fully convey our gratitude to the Government for their tireless investigation of this case in their pursuit of justice. I personally hope that Clare Bronfman can find peace and repentance by facing the dark truth of Nxivm.”
The prosecution also told Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis that, in addition to Sylvie and the nine other victims who read statements in court, there are 92 additional victim impact statements. Most of them directed at Raniere.
If what happened to Clare is any indication, Raniere will be sentenced to life in prison.
To recap, the other victim statements for Clare Bronfman are.
- Sarah Edmondson: here.
- Ivy Nevares: here.
- Jane Doe 14: here.
- Jane Doe 12: here.
- Toni Natalie: here
- Sally Brink: here
- Susan Dones: here
- Barbara Bouchey: here
- Kristin Keeffe: here
After Sylvie’s statement was read, Clare’s attorney, Ronald Sullivan, addressed the judge to argue for probation. Some of the things Sullivan told the judge about Clare were, based on my knowledge of the heiress and her affairs, factually untrue.
I doubt that Sullivan knowingly lied to the court. I suspect he may have been misled – and that he did not take the time to do his own independent research.
[My comments in bold and brackets.]
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this. We… are asking the Court to issue a sentence… of three years probation…
[W]ith regard to the victim in this case, Jane Doe Number 12, [read her statement] …. Clare … would like to express her deep, deep, sorrow for any and all pain caused to Jane Doe 12.
She considers, present tense, Jane Doe 12, a friend, a person who grew up through the Nxivm program with her, growing together in certain very important aspects of life and she is deeply, deeply sorry, and begs the Court’s pardon, begs Jane Doe 12’s pardon for everything that she did to cause her pain; no excuses, just a flat-out apology to someone whom she cares deeply about…
Clare Bronfman… is a 41-year-old woman who before this had absolutely no criminal history. She spent her youth as a professional athlete and then was introduced through her family member, her sister [Sara] and father [Edgar Bronfman, Sr.] to Nxivm, where she began to find a purpose in her life.
Clare Bronfman has wanted to and still wants to help people, and plain and simple, that has been her mission.
She has made mistakes… but her mission in life has been to help people. She is privileged and has unearned wealth which she freely admits through inheritance and she thought and thinks she ought to use that in a way to help humanity.
That is what appealed to Clare when she was introduced to Nxivm. She and some 17 or 18,000 additional people [who took Nxivm courses] found success through Nxivm in terms of being a better person an ethical person, a humanitarian. That was her goal. That’s what she wanted to do with the gifts that she had and in very many respects, Your Honor, Clare was successful in helping people for a long time…
So, with no criminal history prior to this, Ms. Bronfman has been on house arrest as Your Honor knows for 26 months. No problems. She has been perfect with respect to her pretrial reporting… She’s been diligent… abiding by everything that this court ordered. She is a good risk, Your Honor, to abide by anything that this court decides to order, should Your Honor grant this probationary term that we are requesting…
Clare knew nothing about DOS… Clare Bronfman denounces and renounces in all of its forms any sex trafficking, any human trafficking, or any sort of sex cult, whatever the terms are…
It was a secret organization. She was not told about it and… there is no way she would know about the branding… everything having to do with DOS, including the branding, was secret…
Ms. [Barbara] Bouchey… said that many were directed, and I’m quoting, to lie to Clare: “You thought you were in the inner circle, you were six layers out,” end quote. People were directed to lie to Clare to keep certain things from Clare and all of the issues about DOS simply were kept from Clare…
Next, with respect to the money that Clare spent over the years, I fear that Your Honor may be left with an impression that Clare just sort of willy-nilly gave money to Mr. Raniere to do as he pleased and…. that Ms. Bronfman enabled Mr. Raniere in all sorts of ways with the funds.
The truth of the matter, Your Honor, is that the money can be separated into three distinct areas… not one dime of Ms. Bronfman’s money went to DOS, there’s no wire transfer, no check, no cash, nothing, zero…
The first category, about $67 million went to paying calls on commodity trades, not as the Government puts it, 67 million to Keith Raniere to go and play in the commodities market. These were calls on previous investments. 67 million went to that.
[This is simply not true. Clare did not put $67 million into covering Keith’s commodity losses. She and her sister lost $67 million combined – losing about $33.5 million each. This is a serious misrepresentation.]
That had nothing to do with the operation of Nxivm. Nxivm had, as I mentioned, 17 or 18,000 people. It made millions of dollars, even tens of millions of dollars over the years so that was one category of money, a big chunk. [The IRS agents who worked on this case must have perked up when they heard this claim because, insofar as it is known, Nxivm never paid one dollar of federal income taxes throughout its almost two decades of operations.]
THE COURT: So whose trades were they?
MR. SULLIVAN: Some were Keith Raniere’s and others were friends [The trades were controlled by Raniere through a “formula” he had conceived to win in the commodities market, particularly corn futures.].They were involved in Nxivm, but friends of Clare, who were investing in the commodities market… And [Clare] covered them, fully expecting, as the way calls work, fully expecting that he would recoup, but —[This is another mishmash of truths and untruths. Clare and Sara never covered any of the losses that other people sustained when they covered other losses that Raniere sustained in the commodities markets. Their $67 million merely covered the losses he incurred in his attempt to beat the professional traders at their own game.]
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Raniere didn’t have a job, as far as I can tell. He wasn’t earning a big, big paycheck and he had $67 million worth of calls at one point on commodities trades?
MR. SULLIVAN: No, Your Honor. Not as I understand it.
THE COURT:… Wouldn’t that tell someone, a person of means, a multimillionaire, that something is wrong here; that someone invested all of this money and now they owe $67 million in commodities trading? What does that tell you? That is a rhetorical question. What does that tell you about the individual [Raniere] who you are doing business with or who you are associated with? I think it is strange.
MR. SULLIVAN: It could be, very well. The first point is that it wasn’t all calls from Mr. Raniere. There were other people involved. [Though it might be what Clare told her attorney, Raniere controlled every aspect of the commodities trades regardless of whose name he put the trades in.] The second point is that as far as Clare knew, that Mr. Raniere was supported by his longtime life partner [Pam Cafritz] who was a woman of independent means.
[Pam, whose parents were wealthy, had a monthly stipend of about $20,000 per month and Pam left him $8 million when she died. Interestingly enough, it is believed that this “woman of independent means never spent one dollar covering any of Raniere’s losses in the commodities market.]
How those people involved invested in the market was not Clare’s doing, but they were in the market.
[Nancy, Pam and Clare did not know anything about commodities. Clare told me that she had no idea what trades Keith made or how her money was lost. I started to investigate this matter before being suddenly fired as a Nxivm consultant.] There were calls. If calls are met and if it works out, as Your Honor knows, she would have gotten her money back. She didn’t. She lost a lot of money. She was not happy about that at all.
THE COURT: What year was that. I do not recall?
MR. SULLIVAN: ’05. [That date is also incorrect – and further demonstrates just how little Clare’s lawyer knew about her case. The actual commodities losses occurred in 2002 and/or 2003.]
THE COURT: She was upset, but she continued to have a relationship with Mr. Raniere until 2018 when they were arrested. I wanted to understand what’s at play here. I am just following up on your issue.
MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed. Perhaps he and others were not good commodity investors. She also made more money than she lost in that period investing and other things personally
[It is not true that she earned more money than she lost. I examined her net worth statements provided to me by her in 2007 and 2008. The reason she can say she made more money than she lost is that she concealed her losses in the commodities market. She listed on her net worth statement that she did not lose the $33.5 million invested in commodities. She listed the $33.5 million as an asset – an interest-bearing loan to First Principles, Inc., one of Raniere’s companies. Yet she knew she would not get the money back. I asked her why she showed her loss as an asset and Clare told me “To hide the loss from my trustees so they won’t tell my father.” B believe it or not, she even falsified her tax returns by claiming that she was paid interest on the First Principles, Inc. loan – and then paid taxes on the non-existent interest.]
Not only did she not make money at that time, she and her sister ran through their first trust fund money [$135 million] – and had to borrow against a future trust. Clare apparently did not tell that to her attorney – or she did, and he lied to the court.]
THE COURT: I see. Go ahead.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. But to say that he and others may have been bad investors in the commodities market is not to say that she was aware of a RICO enterprise in Nxivm per se. $30 million, Your Honor, went to The Ethical Science Foundation. If Your Honor has had a chance to look at the “My Tourette’s” documentary that we submitted. From Clare’s vantage point, she was able to see how her investment in a scientific endeavor played out. [This appears to be a total fabrication – or Clare’s attorney just admitted that Clare lost another $30-million that was not previously disclosed. One thing is for certain: The Ethical Science Foundation has nowhere near $30-million in assets – which raises questions about what happened to those funds.]
[Sullivan does not mention that Clare also funded human fright experiments where women were subjected to snuff films and films of gang rapes while being monitored by an EEG for their reactions, which resulted in Brandon Porter losing his medical license.]
Viewing the [Tourette’s] video, which I have certainly done many times, the results were incredible. These were people with severe Tourette’s Syndrome who – Clare is not a doctor. She didn’t do the doctoring part of it. She was an investor, but these are people with severe Tourette’s Syndrome who, in the end, were speaking more fluently than I am speaking today. It was simply, simply an incredible change. And that’s the bulk of the money; responding to calls and the money for The Ethical Science Foundation.
[The $100 million really went into five places – paying for lawsuits; funding Raniere; funding Nxivm; covering commodities losses and other Raniere investments, mainly real estate in Albany and Los Angeles; and The Ethical Science Foundation, which was used in part as means to bring women into the USA from foreign countries, sometimes illegally.]
Now, there were — the remaining had to do with litigation and I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate now and I don’t intend to go litigation by litigation and talk about that, but, yes, she did fund lawyers in her capacity as a board member of Nxivm where she thought that intellectual property and the like of Nxivm was stolen…
[Sullivan makes it sound like her investment into litigation was just a few million. This is because he misstates her commodities losses as $67 million when it was $33.5 million. The other $33.5 million or so of the $100 million went into litigation. Clare obviously knew this but she allowed her attorney to misrepresent her use of money to the court. Downplaying her role in funding litigation, she doubled her true commodities losses and minimized her $30 million spent on lawsuits and investigations of enemies as just a few million. When I was her consultant, Clare and her sister Sara were spending hundreds of thousands a month – millions per year on litigation. Add that up over 15 years and they may have spent more on lawyers and investigators than they lost in commodities.]
THE COURT: There is nothing in this record in particular about the advice that she was given by attorneys as to whether these cases were serious cases that – where the rights of the plaintiffs were significantly affected which would cause a mature, wealthy individual to provide funding for an extended litigation. I mean, all we’ve got is they brought this case and they brought that case and then we hear from victims of these lawsuits …. but… I have never been provided with any kind of professional statement of counsel as to the kind of advice that was given to Ms. Bronfman….. if you are saying that these were bona fide lawsuits against people who had done wrong, civilly or otherwise, then this was an opportunity to clarify that; and you have not clarified that because these lawyers have not come forward to tell me, like the lawyer in Mexico, [who Clare retained to threaten DOS women who wanted to leave] to tell me that this lawyer counseled Clare that there was something awry that caused her to bring – to threaten litigation against people who she used to have relationships with. So why are we even talking about it other than she paid for litigation? I heard that.
[Sullivan was clearly failing to persuade the judge that Clare’s litigations were meritorious and mostly successful litigation.]
MR. SULLIVAN: I will make three points in response to Your Honor’s concerns. First, with respect to every jurisdiction of which I’m aware, an attorney has an ethical obligation that prohibits him or her to bring suits or institute legal proceedings just to vex an innocent.
[Sullivan is naïve if he thinks a wealthy person like Clare Bronfman could not find attorneys to engage in vexatious and abusive litigation] I’m not aware of any jurisdiction that allows that. That’s an inference that Your Honor can draw.
THE COURT: I do not draw that inference without evidence … because you are asking me to believe that there was a bona fide reason for, you know, writing a check [to lawyers] which had an adverse effect on certain people for years and years and years and that it was a – that it was done in good faith, all right? The question of good faith is something that I can take into account [in sentencing]. I can take good faith into account, but there is no way for me to infer that there was good faith here because no effort was made by your client to associate her actions with the claim of good faith…
[The judge wanted evidence from Clare and her lawyers that the lawsuits were meritorious, with statements from attorneys and with the results of the litigation, something that Clare or her attorney did not provide.]
MR. SULLIVAN: May I just clarify the record with my final two points?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. SULLIVAN: The second point is… that most of the litigation claimed to be vexatious was, in fact, successful in courts of competent jurisdiction; another basis for the Court to draw an inference [that the lawsuits were meritorious, not meant to destroy enemies by using Clare’s wealth to legally crush her opponents].
[Of the 40 lawsuits, Clare was only victorious in three cases. Most were dismissed sometimes after years of heavy litigation. The results of 40 lawsuits and over $30 million in legal fees for Clare racked up 3 wins, 36 losses, and one pending case.]
MR. SULLIVAN: …. almost 100 million went to two things clearly unassociated with Nxivm as an organization…
[Commodities and The Ethical Science Foundation. But again, this is false. About a third of the $100 million went into litigation and more went to funding Nxivm.]
THE COURT: Counsel, Raniere was Nxivm and if your client was bailing out Mr. Raniere, she was in effect bailing out Nxivm, no?
MR. SULLIVAN: I don’t agree with that as I understand the corporate structure of Nxivm, Mr. Raniere could have issues. He certainly was the founder and the charismatic leader and, yes, if he failed, I suppose Nxivm would have failed. My simple point was that 100 million didn’t go to the corporate entity itself; that it was quite well self-sustained and, to my knowledge, none of the earnings from the corporate entity went to the commodities or anything like that [When I was a consultant, Clare and Sara funded the salaries of several people who worked for Nxivm]. You know, the 30 million for The Ethical Science Foundation was a group within Nxivm, but it was self-funded for that and, of course, no one has ever claimed that that money didn’t go to that research. So that’s — [Once again, the IRS should have a field day tracking down this $30 million that supposedly went into The Ethical Science Foundation.]
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. SULLIVAN: So, the final section here, Your Honor, we submitted as well a number of character letters about Clare. Because of the rules of court and federal statutes they obviously do not have the opportunity to make the claims in front of Your Honor in open court [apparently only victims can speak at sentencing.] but we ask Your Honor to consider these as well. These are people who have known Clare, some dated back to her pre-Nxivm days, people within Nxivm who certainly had a very different understanding and appreciation of the value or of the organization, and some people who may not be fond of Nxivm anymore, but are still extraordinarily fond of Clare Bronfman and these letters weren’t sort of created out of whole cloth because of the range.
People who have even encountered Clare on somewhat of a random basis, her acupuncturist, for example, all see within her a desire to do good and be helpful. Indeed some of the character witnesses that Your Honor heard from even mentioned that this seems to be at the core of Clare’s personality; that she wants to do good, wants to be a humanitarian.
[The 66 letters in support of Clare were from family members, Nxivm members, and others financially dependent or standing to benefit or having benefitted financially from her. None of her brothers or cousins wrote letters in support. That her attorney had to mention her acupuncturist, someone who sticks needles in her twice a month, shows how few people were willing to state on the record that she touched them in a positive way.]
If Your Honor finds that that desire was misused or somehow corrupted through this vehicle of Nxivm, that just doesn’t speak to what is deep within Clare’s character and what she understood herself to be doing in an attempt to help people in an organization whom she cared deeply for and to help an organization that she and others, for some long periods of their lives, cared deeply for…
And, so, in that sense, you know, this is the basis of why we are asking for a probationary term. Clare — the thing — the entity [Nxivm] that many have claimed through very vivid imagery used Clare in a way that aided in things that it was doing outside the scope of its charter is no more. That was a very garbled way of saying, Your Honor, that Nxivm as an institution doesn’t exist. There isn’t a reason then to think that Nxivm is going to in any way use Clare’s wealth even unknowingly, even use it in a way that is problematic and troubled…
[The point missing is that Clare with her wealth, outside the strictures of prison, could easily rebuild Nxivm, even under a different name.]
And in conclusion, Your Honor, if permitted a period of probation as we are asking for, Clare will continue to attempt to use whatever wealth she has left to do some good in this world.
[This argument may have rankled the judge. He does not see Clare as having done good with her money and for the lawyer to say she will “continue” to use her wealth to do good might have had the opposite effect than what was intended.].
If nothing else, she has learned tremendously from this experience about how to take ownership of what she has and make independent decisions with – and using advisors [For years, she had only one advisor: Raniere] to help inform her decisions, but to make decisions that just comply with not only law but rules and norms. She is a deeply, highly scheduled person; an individual who wants to dot every “i” and cross every “t” and to just use a colloquial phrase, do the right thing, Your Honor.
That’s the Clare Bronfman that sits here before you right now, an individual who has always been committed to being in the service of humanity and now has even recommitted to being in the service of humanity.
[The judge saw the woman sitting before him as cruel and not committed to the service of humanity. Remorse might have been a better strategy. Not to keep arguing how good she is – and how she helped so many people and wants to continue doing what she had done.]
Things obviously over the last few years got distorted in a way that we can never turn back. But what she can do and what she’s committed to do and what she will do going forward is to take the same desire that got her to do The Ethical Science Foundation, the one that got her to think about how to help people suffering from, in this case, a neurologic disorder, but suffering is what – when Clare sees someone suffer, she steps in.
[The judge seems to have viewed her as someone who makes people suffer, including the 10 women he heard from in his court.]
As Your Honor knows, she’s a business owner. And when COVID hit, like every place else, it went from an income to zero; to zero, to closed down, shut down. Clare did not fire, did not lay off a single employee,
[At her Wakaya Island resort in Fiji, she kept on staff to maintain the property. She owns 80 percent of the island of about 300 residents.] but rather used what resources she had to continue to pay those families so that they can eat and feed their children and educate them and so forth.
When Clare sees hurt and suffering, she attempts to step in. And that she has caused hurt and suffering is deeply upsetting to her, I mean down to the marrow of her bone and her core, Your Honor, deeply upsetting that she could be the cause of suffering when all she wanted to do was to help people.
***
[As we shall see in a subsequent post, this argument about Clare’s goodness was unpersuasive. If I were to boil down his argument to a few sentences, you will see why it annoyed the judge.
Sullivan said, We… are asking the Court to issue a sentence of three years probation. Clare Bronfman is a 41-year-old woman who was introduced to Nxivm where she began to find a purpose in her life. Clare Bronfman wants to help people, and plain and simple, that has been her mission. Her mission in life has been to help people. She thinks she ought to help humanity.
She found success through Nxivm in terms of being a better person an ethical person, a humanitarian. That was her goal. That’s what she wanted to do with the gifts that she had and in very many respects, Your Honor, Clare was successful in helping people for a long time.
And in conclusion, Your Honor, if permitted a period of probation, Clare will continue to attempt to use her wealth to do some good in this world. She wants to do the right thing, Your Honor. She’s committed to being in the service of humanity and now has even recommitted to being in the service of humanity. She’s committed to going forward to help people suffering. When Clare sees someone suffer, she steps in. When Clare sees hurt and suffering, she attempts to step in. Down to the marrow of her bone and her core, all she wanted to do was to help people.
[Sullivan calling Nxivm a place for getting success, which was decided by a jury in the judge’s courtroom to be a racketeering enterprise and the constant eulogizing Clare as a saintly character, after the judge heard from 10 victims who painted an entirely different picture, put things in stark contrast. Sullivan was new to the case. She had three sets of lawyers before him. He possibly did not understand the judge’s view of Bronfman or the case. His speech was like throwing gasoline on a fire, as we shall see when it comes time to sentence her.
[Finally, her lawyer said she was victorious in most of her lawsuits. In our next post, we will take a closer look at her record, as we further study the nuances of this case.]
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I am so pleased the judge saw through all this. If he then suffers from the same abuse she/KR used as does Scientology in going after everyone in a scorched earth policy of vexatious (or at least over the top) revenge litigation even against judges that would be pretty awful.
How can Clare claim to not know about DOS, yet retain a Mexican lawyer to threaten women who wanted to leave DOS? Did she perjure herself to the court?
Great point!!!!
Everyone missed that!!! Seriously. Great point.
Great Reporting!
Clare’s attorney did absolutely no true preparation before his presentation to the court. The attorney simply took a precursory look at the case before giving his sentencing summation.
Side note:
The top painting is excellent
Sullivan represented Clare’s interests prior to her sentencing, both superficially and with a dearth of comprehension about how cults operate. The only way that you acquire this background of research and experience is by getting in the trenches oneself, whether through diligent research, interactive interpersonal experience(s) or a combination of those elements.
Frank sees it and says it. Sullivan didn’t use his depth. That doesn’t mean that he has no depth. He is Clare’s employee, perhaps doing his best under the circumstances.
And to an omnivore, Clare Bronfman is a meatless, stringy bone, one might guess. Sullivan has the torso of an omnivore, walking the city streets. What a waste. Of a truthseeker, if only temporarily on a detour. Dunno.
The most acute and excellent therapist Clare has is herself, seemingly still unreachable to her. She might not be receptive to hearing that she is engaged in self-destruction or to face its details. She might not have the capacity left in this life to unburden herself. It is sad. No matter who it is.
This dude Sullivan probably just lost his job and all of his credibility at Harvard Law School lol. WTF was he thinking taking this case and even trying to make these terrible arguments??? I don’t feel like you’d need a high powered, expensive lawyer to speak any of that nonsense. I think he did more harm than good. More money well spent by Clare-bear. Amazing.
“..Down to the marrow of her bones, etc..” I mean, come on..what is her defense offering? DNA proof of her goodness?
Forgive my ignorance,
Can someone please explain what commodities “calls” are and how this all worked?
I was under the impression that the Bronfman sisters GIFTED Keith $67 million, lied and claimed it was a “loan” (is that for tax reasons?) and he lost it all being arrogant & super shitty at picking good stocks to buy.
Thanks to anyone who can explain this to me.
There’s no paperwork whatsoever to confirm that the $67 Million investments were ever actually placed.
I’m a bit surprised that Frank seems to accept that they in fact happened.
I do not know for a fact that they happened. I know that the sister spent the money. I also spoke to the commodities broker who said Raniere did make commodities investments and lost it all. But I do not know the truth. I wanted to investigate that and I was fired by Raniere.
I have seen the actual records of all the trades. They do exist.
The Raniere trial reeks of feminism. The main method of feminism is the victimization of women as a collective, as well as the criminalization and demonization of men and their masculine behaviors, distorting them, promoting hatred towards the nature of men (misandria) for example, repeating negative memes such as “all men are potential rapists. ” In this way, it creates a wrong polarity “victim-perpetrator” based on the sex of the people.
That’s an entirely incorrect assumption, based on your[redacted] opinions of women.
Women are oppressed based on their biology, their reproductive labor. None of the women involved were feminists or practiced any feminist principles. They centered men and one man in particular above themselves. They did not seek liberation from patriarchy, they thought they were attaining a higher rank in female oppression.
The notion that recognizing male violence is any way related to misandry is often a male supremacist – Red Pill – MRA screed, by men that feel entitled to compliance and servitude. Men commit 99% of violent crime. If you are equating masculinity with criminal assault, I’m afraid you’re making the case for men as second class citizens, not worthy of freedom of movement, and contained supervision. Are men just dumb animals that can’t control their emotions? It seems you are.
Masculinity is a construct, and from what I can tell, it hasn’t done a single one of you any favors. what you’re describing is Fragile Masculinity. If you can’t compete unless you game the system against women, it says more about your lack of abilities, shortcomings and insecurities than anything else.
Men aren’t oppressed by women telling the truth. An oppressed class fighting back against their oppressor isn’t a form of bigotry. Under no dictionary definition does that apply.
Are you in Mexico where the femicide is taking place? Women are slaughtered for saying no to a man [redacted]
Your misogyny is showing, Frank. This is one of the many reasons why your pretense at higher journalism is a front.
Do you think men need protecting, when they espouse red pill incel dogma in your comment section? They can say anything, and you censor the response. You’re a fraud.
Take a good look, you behave exactly like Keith Reniere.
Redacting your insults toward another commenter has nothing to do with his/her gender. I am tying to limit insults between commenters.
Rafael Mendoza Torres made a comment on women’s faults. He did not insult you. You made a comment about men’s faults but you did not stop there, you had to personally insult him.
This suggests you felt you lost the argument and needed to bolster it with a personal attack, either that or you are quite immature. You would be better served making your arguments without personally insulting other commenters on this site. When you learn that, you may be quite persuasive.
Anonymous,
Everything you and Rafael are speaking about are made-up constructs. Gender is not a role or an identity. It’s an evolutionary fact: male and female. You and Rafael postulate that men and women are protagonists/antagonists in your separate narratives. You both are wrong.
Your whole thesis is predicated on the idea of a male patriarchy that has held back women for thousands of years. Is it some type of conspiracy? Seriously? Patriarchy?
I don’t recall ever having a secret meeting with other men on how we will hold back women.
Your whole patriarchy belief is a human construct. You do realize constructs are not real.
Guess what is real. Gender and sex.
Take a long hard look at the animal kingdom. It’s like looking in the mirror. Humans ourselves are animals.
You are the sexist on making everything about sex and gender, not Frank.
Feminism is a movement of cultural Marxist subversion, which has the purpose of destabilizing, fracturing and fragmenting a society and depriving it of its natural functioning through the fabrication of artificial conflicts between men and women based on the incitements that the Woman is the object of oppression by men and that women are not different from men but exactly the same and are capable of carrying out all the functions of the man, so this movement cleverly disguises itself as a “vindication of rights for women”. for which a large part of society does not perceive its true nature. Consequently, women who follow feminist guidelines begin to be perceived negatively by men, which ultimately generates positions that reach varying degrees of misogyny, which closes the feminist ideological circle and creates an absurd conflict between men and women . Unlike what its proponents argue, feminism is not an equity movement. Feminism is gynocentric and supremacist. The feminist perspective, from its definition, its theory and its practice, takes women as the center and axis of its thought and activity, which, added to the negative characterization of men and masculinity, distances it from the concept of “equality” . It also promotes gender ideology, in which the ideal is for men to have “feminine” behaviors and women to have “masculine” behaviors.
Mr. Torres,
I do agree with your last point.
“It also promotes gender ideology, in which the ideal is for men to have “feminine” behaviors and women to have “masculine” behaviors.”
The only thing I can agree with “Anonymous“ on is the fact men are more violent than women; my belief was this fact was pretty much a given. 😉 Therefore, unsurprisingly, men have greater musculature and bone density. In the mammal animal kingdom, nearly all male species are more violent.
Anonymous will not respond because they have returned to their echo-chamber-safe-space.
Why does Niceguy personally insult people?
A) He feels he lost the argument and wants to bolster his losing stance
B) He is quite immature
C) Both A and B
D) The a-hole deserved it. LOL
E) NiceGuy points out philosophic illogic when he sees it.
Currently, we live in an era where everyone is a victim; anyone who does not share the “right beliefs” is a misogynist or misandrist; and cancel culture runs amok.
My answer would have been both B & D.
Did some self reflection on the question being posed to me. Using everytime I’ve called Scott a poopyhead as the control, I also came up with B and D. However, when I was brave enough to go up against anonymaker, it was C.
I don’t understand your comment, Nice Guy, but I am thinking about letting you and Scott go at it – just like Sultan of Six and The Anti-Kreuk do.
—I don’t understand your comment, Nice Guy,
My comment is a little obtuse.
Frank, thank you for your offer regarding LOL-SCOTT. On a previous thread, I took you up on your offer.
Thanks…
Instead of vindicating women as human beings with their own nature and identity, feminism tries to strip her of her essence, of her pure and natural femininity: it denies her and seeks her destruction, which is why it is not only a movement against man but against every human being. In that sense, feminism can be perceived as an extreme form of machismo, since it tells women that they should not be like a woman but like a man.
The loss of feminine identity causes women to equate themselves to men and assume the roles that men have corresponded to since the origins of humanity. In this way, women begin to think and act like men, which is also related to phenomena such as lesbianism and misandry (aversion or hatred of men).
In the West, natural femininity in women has begun to be perceived as completely negative due to feminism. In Hollywood films it has been desired to impose on the collective unconscious the false archetype of the “tough girl”: the woman who uses weapons and participates in battles, who has nothing to do with reality.
Femininity is actually perceived by cultural feminists and Marxists as “weakness”, “incompetence”, “subjection”, and “uselessness”. Consequently, for feminism, being a woman in every sense of the word is equivalent to being at the complete mercy of men, whose main objective would be to “subjugate” women, while “they are made to believe that they love “. But why would men do that? feminism responds: “because men can do it and they have no morals when it comes to their relationships with women. A man’s natural large, muscular body somehow makes him a monstrous, sadistic and cruel rapist.” men are potential rapists. ”
Therefore, according to feminism, a woman should never trust a man since there is no way that he can be really honest with her and all masculine attitudes are deviously distorted and reinterpreted according to the feminist agenda: “If a man Finds attractive, then it means he wants to rape you. ” “If he wants to protect you, then it means he feels entitled to your body.” “If he says he loves you, then it means he wants to possess you and enslave you as his unpaid whore until he finds a younger whore to enslave with more words of love.”
Thus, if femininity in women can lead to their own misfortune, then femininity is a negative trait that must also be combated. Then the woman must adopt distorted masculine behaviors: be more rude, use bad words, humiliate and vex men, especially those who court them, and tell them that they do not need them at all.
This causes the psychological emasculation of males. A fear begins to develop in men to behave according to their nature, because gender ideology says that this is immoral and negatively affects women. So, the man must be “deconstructed”: be more meek, more submissive, he must control his sexual impulses, and if he becomes effeminate or homosexual, much better for feminism.
Feminism promotes and glorifies promiscuity and irresponsible sex, under the slogan of “sexual liberation”, also embraced by homosexual movements. Promiscuity deeply damages the psyche of women and yet feminism is aware of this, since for it the existence of a psychologically damaged group is necessary, to raise its victimizing discourse and be able to justify its actions.
Have you read the story of Susanna from the Old Testament, Rafael? The name Susanna and its offshoots means lily.
Beauty attracts, often unsought and unwanted advances. Sometimes the results of natural magnetism are shocking.
We who carry someone else’s life inside of our bodies are thankful for boys and for girls, equally. And with respect, devotion and open hearts. The same as real fathers feel and do. No one will take that love from my heart or mind or spirit. But go on and argue away, bleat it out.
Wiser words have never been spoken on the this news website.
A lovely comment and how I feel as a mother of sons and daughters (and about men and women in general), but better put than I could write.
Shivani can be incredible eloquent when she is not being poetic.
No. It is the opposite. The trial has protected women (and men) from KR and the Bronfmans. No one has demonized men. Indeed I think more women than men have been prosecuted.